Where we stand with two weeks to go

1. On September 15 EPA will close its informal comment period on the subject of banning the use of lead in jigs, split shot, sinkers, and other fishing tackle items.

2. We have seen news reports that EPA lacks jurisdiction to ban lead ammo and tackle. The part about ammo is true - the other part about tackle is not. NRA forcefully asserted the Second Amendment and EPA backed off of regulating ammo. In an 8/27 news release, EPA said - As there are no similar jurisdictional issues relating to the agency's authority over fishing sinkers, EPA – as required by law – will continue formally reviewing a second part the petition related to lead fishing sinkers.

3. Unless fishermen can make a strong cost/benefit argument, EPA will advance this proposal to the next level and propose a regulation. If that happens, there will be a formal public comment period - typically 60 days. When that comment period closes, EPA could issue a ban on lead fishing tackle at any time.

NOW is the time to speak up.

The purpose of this discussion forum is to defend our right to make and use fishing tackle containing lead. Our only means of defense is to offer reasons why the environmental benefits of taking away our rights are outweighed by the enjoyment lead tackle adds to our sport.

By my estimate, we have identified only 4 points, so far:
1. Unlike hunters, fishermen do not intend to deposit lead into the environment. Hunters make no attempt to retrieve spent bullets and shot. Fishermen make every attempt to retrieve tackle items. Every piece of lead that is cast into the environment has a line attached to it. Tackle remains in the environment only when it breaks off or fishermen are unable to pull it loose.
2. The cost of tackle is much higher when alternative metals are used. This site features lead-free tackle items with prices that are 10 times the cost of comparable lead items.
3. Higher tackle costs will discourage children and casual fishermen who will not purchase the fishing licenses that generate revenue to pay for conservation efforts.
4. Homemade tackle has always been an enjoyable part of the sport. Due to melting points, cost, or density, no other metal provides home tackle makers a suitable alternative to lead for jig heads and other weighted lures.

Theres little, if any, evidence of fishing tackle causing any of the problems
assoc. with lead and wildlife.
Fishermans loss of lead related items occurs in deep water areas not assoc.
with wildlife or waterfowl.
Ingestion is the route of intoxication for wildlife and waterfowl, it's poorly
documented with regards to fishing tackle.
The petitioners main complaints of lead are assoc. with hunting practices
which have been eliminated from the scope of the petition.
It does impede on the bill of rights, under a different amendment: LIBERTY
The petitioners main exhibit could only vaguely produce 5% of the complaint
with most of that being biased and unproven.
Furthermore, I believe the "ONLY" claim supporting their petition was a
turtle that showed symtoms, and was probably sacrificed, because theres
no lab data to back it up.
As stated earlier, theres no proven alternative with regards to toxicity or
cost effectiveness.
Improvements from Excise Taxes, also benefit wildlife and waterfowl.

This is just nothing more than a back door to stop fishing. If they happen to get this thru they will be after the plastics next, and this would also include fishing line. If you enjoy fishing everyone had better make the phone calls and send letters to your politicians. I would hate to come on this site and just talk about the fishing we used to be able to do.